切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2020, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (06) : 621 -624. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2020.06.009

所属专题: 文献

临床论著

不同类型腹股沟疝的高频超声及CDFI特征分析
黄振秀1,(), 冯业平1, 陈道磊1   
  1. 1. 571500 海南省万宁市人民医院超声科
  • 收稿日期:2019-12-01 出版日期:2020-12-20
  • 通信作者: 黄振秀

High-frequency ultrasound and CDFI features of different types of inguinal hernia

Zhenxiu Huang1,(), Yaping Feng1, Daolei Chen1   

  1. 1. Wanning People's Hospital, Wanning 571500, China
  • Received:2019-12-01 Published:2020-12-20
  • Corresponding author: Zhenxiu Huang
引用本文:

黄振秀, 冯业平, 陈道磊. 不同类型腹股沟疝的高频超声及CDFI特征分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(06): 621-624.

Zhenxiu Huang, Yaping Feng, Daolei Chen. High-frequency ultrasound and CDFI features of different types of inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(06): 621-624.

目的

探究不同类型腹股沟疝患者的超声声像特征,分析高频超声及彩色多普勒血流显像(CDFI)在腹股沟疝诊断中的应用价值。

方法

选择2017年1月至2019年8月期间万宁市人民医院超声科收治的65例腹股沟疝患者进行回顾性分析。其中,男性55例,女性10例;年龄5~78岁,平均年龄(52.35±8.24)岁。所有患者均于术前行高频超声及CDFI检查,并与手术病理检查对照。

结果

65例腹股沟疝患者中,直疝5例,易复性疝50例,难复性疝3例,嵌顿性疝5例,绞窄性疝2例。超声声像图显示,直疝患者局部腹壁无明显变化,层次清晰囊内可见少量液性暗区,经CDFI可见少量血流信号;易复性疝、难复性疝患者腹股沟管扩张,内可见肠管、大网膜回声,肠壁层次清晰,无增厚,大网膜网格状囊实性相间杂乱回声或不均匀实性回声,经CDFI可见多个长条状和(或)短棒状的彩色血流信号;嵌顿性疝患者腹股沟、阴囊、大阴唇内可见实性类圆形回声团块,边界清晰,肠壁增厚,回声减低,经CDFI可见血流信号明显减少,团块内可见少许散在的点状血流信号;绞窄性疝患者疝囊内可见渗出的液性暗区,肠壁明显增厚,回声极低,经CDFI可见血流信号急剧减少或消失。以手术病理检查为"金标准",超声诊断腹股沟疝的灵敏度为96.72%(59/61),特异度为75.00%(3/4),准确率为95.38%(62/65),误诊率为3.08%(2/65),漏诊率为1.54%(1/65);诊断直疝、易复性疝、难复性疝、嵌顿性疝和绞窄性疝的符合率分别为80.00%(4/5)、100%(50/50)、66.67%(2/3)、80.00%(4/5)和100.00%(2/2)。超声测量直疝、易复性疝、难复性疝、嵌顿性疝、绞窄性疝的疝环内径与手术检查比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.436,1.435,0.878,0.376,0.784;P>0.05)。

结论

高频超声及CDFI检查对诊断不明确的腹股沟疝患者有重要的临床意义,可作为临床首选检查方法。

Objective

To investigate the ultrasonographic features of different types of inguinal hernia, and analyze the value of high-frequency ultrasound and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) in diagnosis of inguinal hernia.

Methods

The study retrospectively reviewed 65 patients with inguinal hernia treated in the Wanning people's hospital from January 2017 to August 2019. Of these, 55 were males and 10 were females; they were 5 to 78 years old, with an average age of (52.35±8.24) years old. All patients were subjected to high-frequency ultrasound and CDFI before surgery, and the examination results were compared with surgical pathological results.

Results

Of 65 patients with inguinal hernia, 5 had direct hernia, 50 had reducible hernia, 3 had irreducible hernia, 5 had incarcerated hernia and 2 had strangulated hernia. Ultrasound images showed that there were no obvious changes in local abdominal wall of patients with direct hernia, few liquid dark areas were observed in the sac with clear layers, and CDFI showed few blood flow signals. In patients with reducible hernia and irreducible hernia, inguinal canal dilatation was observed, and intestinal tube and greater omentum echo were observed in the inguinal canal. The layer of intestinal wall was clear, without thickening, and there was greater omentum grid cystic-solid interphase chaotic echoes or uneven solid echoes. CDFI displayed multiple long and (or) short rod-shaped colored blood flow signals. For patients with incarcerated hernia, solid circular echogenic masses were observed in the groin, scrotum, and labia majora, with clear boundaries, thickened intestinal wall, and reduced echo. CDFI showed significantly decreased blood flow signals, and few scattered dotted blood flow signals were observed in the block masses. In patients with strangulated hernia, liquid dark areas in the hernia sac, obviously thickened intestinal wall, and extremely low echoes were observed. CDFI showed that blood flow signals sharply decreased or disappeared. Using surgical pathological results as the golden standard, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy rate, misdiagnosis rate and missed diagnosis rate of ultrasound for inguinal hernia were 96.72% (59/61), 75.00% (3/4), 95.38% (62/65), 3.08% (2/65) and 1.54% (1/65), respectively. The coincidence rates for diagnosing direct hernia, reducible hernia, irreducible hernia, incarcerated hernia and strangulated hernia were 80.00% (4/5), 100% (50/50), 66.67% (2/3), 80.00% (4/5) and 100.00% (2/2). There was no significant difference in the inner diameter of the hernia ring measured by ultrasound and the value measured during operation (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Both high-frequency ultrasound and CDFI are of clinical significance in diagnosing ill-defined inguinal hernias, and they can be used as the first choice in clinical practice.

图2 嵌顿性疝,疝囊见肠管及肠腔积液回声
图4 易复性疝,CDFI表现为红、蓝条状或点状较多血流信号
图6 绞窄性疝,CDFI无血流信号
表1 超声及手术检查下不同类型腹股沟疝的疝环内径比较(±s
[1]
周凌阳,陈伦宽,陈侃松, 等. 三种不同腹股沟疝手术修补方案的临床有效性及安全性对照探究[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2014, 24(4): 619-622.
[2]
上海医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组. 成人腹股沟疝术后加速康复上海专家共识[J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2017, 32(12): 1083-1084.
[3]
张方正. 超声下判断精索腹壁下动脉与疝囊关系对腹股沟疝类型的鉴别价值[J]. 山西医药杂志, 2015, 44(2): 162-163.
[4]
倪暾. 彩色多普勒超声检查在腹股沟包块鉴别诊断中的应用[J]. 安徽医学, 2015, 36(3): 343-344.
[5]
任道举,文波,何得海. 高频超声和彩色多普勒血流显像诊断腹股沟斜疝[J]. 中国介入影像与治疗学, 2009, 6(2): 24-27.
[6]
吴立胜,荚卫东. 腹股沟疝解剖和诊治新理念[J]. 国际外科学杂志, 2015, 42(9): 582-584.
[7]
李凯,朱岭,王勇, 等. 嵌顿性腹股沟疝合并肠梗阻的临床特点分析[J]. 腹部外科, 2015, 28(3): 168-170.
[8]
王倩蒨,刘刚磊,周建平. 腹股沟疝的影像学检查应用研究进展[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志, 2018, 25(12): 27-30.
[9]
张郦. 高频超声对腹股沟斜疝的诊断价值分析[J]. 医学影像学杂志, 2012, 22(2): 297-299.
[10]
范晓娟,张宝娟,刘广禄, 等. 高频超声在幼儿腹股沟疝的影像特征分析[J]. 西部医学, 2017, 29(10): 1454-14586.
[11]
杨林,向慧娟,周佩. 超声对腹股沟疝的鉴别分型诊断与其病因学关系的研究[J]. 临床超声医学杂志, 2012, 14(4): 49-51.
[12]
陈革,唐健雄. 疝外科的基本原则和手术规范流程[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2015, 18(11): 1074-1076.
[13]
罗玉群,岳文胜,顾鹏, 等. 腹壁下动脉与多因素综合分析在超声鉴别诊断腹股沟疝中的对比研究[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2013, 29(9): 819-822.
[14]
万里明. 27例股疝的临床诊疗体会[J]. 安徽医学, 2016, 37(12): 1544-1546.
[15]
朱雷,唐文皓,唐健雄. 成人腹股沟嵌顿疝和绞窄疝的急诊手术[J]. 国际外科学杂志, 2016, 43(10): 712-715.
[1] 吴畏, 吴永哲, 李宗倍, 崔宏力, 李华志, 许臣. 轻质大网孔补片腹腔镜下疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的疗效及炎症因子的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 70-73.
[2] 曹迪, 张玉茹. 经腹腔镜生物补片修补直肠癌根治术后盆底疝1例[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 115-116.
[3] 孟飞龙, 华帅, 张莹, 路广海. 经脐单孔腹腔镜后鞘后入路在全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术中的应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 658-660.
[4] 孔博, 张璟, 吕珂. 超声技术在复杂腹壁疝诊治中的作用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 670-673.
[5] 张起尧, 刘子文. 复杂腹壁疝的解剖和生物力学基础[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 674-676.
[6] 邢晓伟, 刘雨辰, 赵冰, 王明刚. 基于术前腹部CT的卷积神经网络对腹壁切口疝术后复发预测价值[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 677-681.
[7] 毛永欢, 仝瀚文, 缪骥, 王行舟, 沈晓菲, 喻春钊. 造口旁疝危险因素预测模型构建[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 682-687.
[8] 叶晋生, 路夷平, 梁燕凯, 于淼, 冀祯, 贺志坚, 张洪海, 王洁. 腹腔镜下应用生物补片修补直肠术后盆底缺损的疗效[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 688-691.
[9] 王可, 范彬, 李多富, 刘奎. 两种疝囊残端处理方法在经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术中的疗效比较[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 692-696.
[10] 袁伟, 张修稳, 潘宏波, 章军, 王虎, 黄敏. 平片式与填充式腹股沟疝修补术的疗效比较[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 697-701.
[11] 夏松, 姚嗣会, 汪勇刚. 经腹腹膜前与疝环充填式疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的对照研究[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 702-705.
[12] 姜明, 罗锐, 龙成超. 闭孔疝的诊断与治疗:10年73例患者诊疗经验总结[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 706-710.
[13] 刘跃刚, 薛振峰. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝日间手术在老年患者中的安全性分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 711-714.
[14] 杨瑞洲, 李国栋, 吴向阳. 腹股沟疝术后感染的治疗方法探讨[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 715-719.
[15] 徐金林, 陈征. 抗菌药物临床应用监测对腹股沟疝修补术预防用药及感染的影响[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 720-723.
阅读次数
全文


摘要